BIHAR CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS AND PREVENTION OF FRAGMENTATION ACT, 1956
.-(1) This Act may be called the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956.
(2) It extends to the whole of the State of Bihar.
(3) It shall come into force on such date or dates as the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint and different dates may be appointed for different areas.
[No. A/T-1061/57-7747-R dated 26th September, 1957.-ln exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of section 10f the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (Bihar Act XXII of 1956) the Governor of Bihar is pleased to appoint the 15th day of September, 1957 as the date on which the said Act shall come into force in the district of Patna, Muzaffarpur, Bhagalpur and Ranchi.]
In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context.-
(1) "Agricultural year" means the year commencing on the first day of April;
1[(2) "Consolidation Officer" means an officer appointed by the State Government to discharge all or any of the functions of the Consolidation Officer under this Act and he shall be an officer of Gazetted rank;]
1. Subs. by S.2 of Bihar Act 27 1975
2[(2a) "Assistant Consolidation Officer" means an officer appointed by the State Government to discharge all or any of the functions of the Assistant Consolidation Officer under this Act and who shall be an officer not below the rank of Kanungo;]
2. Ins by Bihar Act 27 of 1975
Legal Comments
"Scope of Section 2(9)" - Section 2(9) defines "land" broadly to include non-agricultural sites (e.g., homesteads, tanks, wells) for purposes of consolidation; it does not limit applicability of the Act to strictly agricultural lands; this broad interpretation allows consolidation to affect varied land types within a unit - [Mosst. Gudhani Devi VS State of Bihar - 1985 0 Supreme(Pat) 129], para discussing definition and inclusivity of homesteads/tanks; Mirza Sulaiman Beg v Harihar Mahto cited - [Asharafi Singh VS Kapildeo Rai (Dead) - 2006 7 Supreme 357]
"Residential house exclusion?" - Section 2(9) does not speak of consolidation proceedings being applicable to a residential house as such; disputes over non-agricultural residences within a consolidation unit may be resolved under the scheme when they fall within the ambit of "land" as broadly defined - [Bhagwan Jha VS State Of Bihar - 2010 0 Supreme(Pat) 1450], paras 12-13; also see remarks on residential share in similar contexts - [Bhagwan Jha VS State Of Bihar - 2010 0 Supreme(Pat) 1450]
"Time-bar and Section 10(2)" - Objections under Section 10(2) can be time-barred, but the period can be condoned in proper cases; Section 10A bars objections at second stage unless delay condoned; revisional authority may condone delay to ensure ends of justice - [Munaka Singh VS State of Bihar - 1998 0 Supreme(Pat) 20], paras 2-3; [Mosst. Gudhani Devi VS State of Bihar - 1985 0 Supreme(Pat) 129], para re: retrospective aspects of Section 5 and timings
"Bar at 10A and remand to merit" - Section 10A bars raising a second-stage objection; however, remand to decide on merit can be proper where delay or procedural hiccups occurred, and the revisional authority may remand to Director Consolidation for fresh merit-based decision - [Munaka Singh VS State of Bihar - 1998 0 Supreme(Pat) 20], paras 2; [Mostt. Chandeshwari Devi VS State of Bihar - 2018 0 Supreme(Pat) 1723], paras 1, 43, 6, 8, 9-13
"Revision jurisdiction under Section 35" - The Director/Additional/Joint Directors of Consolidation have authority to hear revisions; Deputy Director of Consolidation is generally not competent to entertain revision under Section 35 unless delegated; jurisdictional limits are repeatedly stressed - [Kabutari Devi VS Consolidation Officer, Kargahar, Rohtas - 2007 0 Supreme(Pat) 1091], paras 13-15; [Dhruw Dayal Mahto VS State Of Bihar - 2001 0 Supreme(Pat) 770], paras 4-5; [Nand Kishore Singh VS State Of Bihar - 1998 0 Supreme(Pat) 318], para overview
"Consolidation Officers as 'deemed courts'" - Consolidation authorities are deemed courts for certain proceedings but have limited jurisdiction; civil courts still retain power over matters not properly within the Act’s scope; natural justice and due process apply to consolidation orders - [Most. Prabhawati Kumari, wife of Late Baccha Singh VS State of Bihar - 2019 0 Supreme(Pat) 882], paras 3-4; [Kalika Kaur Alias Kalika Singh VS State Of Bihar - 1989 0 Supreme(Pat) 353], paras 47-52, 70, etc; [Bhageloo Sah VS Sheo Shankar Singh - 1984 0 Supreme(Pat) 115], paras 1-4
"Abatement under Section 4(c)" - On publication of Section 3 notification, civil suits and appeals abate to the extent they lie within the scope of the Act; composite or partially covered suits may abate partially under 4(c) depending on whether portions fall within land as defined - [Bettiah Estate VS Pushpa Devi - 1985 0 Supreme(Pat) 224], paras 1-4; [Bettiah Estate VS Pushpa Devi - 1985 0 Supreme(Pat) 224] reference to Bettiah Estate matter
"Abatement of mutation proceedings" - Mutation/correction proceedings abate under Section 4(c) upon notification; effect is that such proceeding cannot proceed concurrently with consolidation until Director/Directors decide afresh; mutations tied to consolidation are curtailed - [Dipnarain Chaudhary VS State Of Bihar - 1984 0 Supreme(Pat) 395]
"Easement suits and 4(c)" - Suits for declaration of easement by customary right are not within the Act’s ambit; Section 4(C) abates such suits since they concern rights not cognizable under consolidation and not correction of records - [Bhageloo Sah VS Sheo Shankar Singh - 1984 0 Supreme(Pat) 115]
"Land deemed as 'land' including non-agricultural plots" - Courts have held that orchards or non-traditional lands may still fall within "land" under Section 2(9); thus Section 5 sanctions apply to transfers and sales even if the land is non-agricultural, until the Draft Scheme is published - [Rabindra Thakur VS Collector, Muzaffarpur - 1995 0 Supreme(Pat) 468], paras 1-3; [Asharafi Singh VS Kapildeo Rai (Dead) - 2006 7 Supreme 357], para 10
"Section 5 and transfer sanctions" - Transfer of land without prior sanction under Section 5 remains void until the scheme stage; however, retrospective amendments to Section 5 have affected certain transfers; earlier deeds may be cured by later amendments, and so past transfers may not be void where amended law applies - [Mosst. Gudhani Devi VS State of Bihar - 1985 0 Supreme(Pat) 129], para detailing retrospective effect
"Section 32 and void transfers" - Transfers without sanction under Section 5, and more generally acts contrary to the Act, can be void; Section 32 provides voidness for transfers contrary to the Act; courts have upheld voiding such transfers when contested in writs - [Rabindra Thakur VS Collector, Muzaffarpur - 1995 0 Supreme(Pat) 468], para 2; [Bettiah Estate VS Pushpa Devi - 1985 0 Supreme(Pat) 224], para 3
"Land within PRDA/Urban areas and consolidation" - The expansion of an area into an urban development authority (PRDA) does not automatically terminate consolidation proceedings; proceedings can continue unless express exclusion; Director of Consolidation cannot sit in appeal/revision over Collector under Section 32; urbanization does not automatically bar consolidation - [Krishna Nand Singh VS State Of Bihar - 1997 0 Supreme(Pat) 30], paras 1-3
"Raiyat status and evidence of title" - Section 2(14) Raiyat requires proof of right to hold land for cultivation; the consolidation officer must rely on evidence of tenancy or raiyat status; mere possession by a claimant without raiyat status fails to establish title under the Act - [Pratap Chand Pandey VS State Of Bihar - 1996 0 Supreme(Pat) 395], paras 1-4, 9-10; [Krishna Nand Singh VS State Of Bihar - 1997 0 Supreme(Pat) 30], para 1
"Side-by-side civil actions vs consolidation" - Where consolidation proceedings are ongoing, civil suits for title may abate or be stayed; once a consolidation scheme is finalized, the right to challenge is constrained, though High Courts may exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in limited cases (pre- and post-closure scrutiny) - [S. M Ehteshamul Hasan Rehmani VS State of Bihar - 2024 0 Supreme(Pat) 430], paras 14-16, 25-26; [Most. Prabhawati Kumari, wife of Late Baccha Singh VS State of Bihar - 2019 0 Supreme(Pat) 882], paras 3-4
"Section 3 publication effect" - Publication under Section 3 starts the consolidation process and abates pending suits; finality of 3(1) publication triggers abatement and sets the stage for subsequent remedial actions - [Jhuri Bind VS State Of Bihar - 2007 0 Supreme(Pat) 1090], para 11; [Bettiah Estate VS Pushpa Devi - 1985 0 Supreme(Pat) 224], para 3
"Section 26A and 26-A interplay" - After completion of consolidation (26-A closure), aggrieved parties may approach civil courts within the Act’s framework for remedies; but the Act restricts reopening of titles post-closure; Para references discuss interplay with Land Acquisition Act and compensation contexts - [S. M Ehteshamul Hasan Rehmani VS State of Bihar - 2024 0 Supreme(Pat) 430], paras 14-16, 21, 25-26
"Awards of costs" - In many consolidation writs, no order as to costs is made, though some decisions disclaim costs; costs outcomes vary by case and are not uniformly determinative of the Act’s principles - [Pratap Chand Pandey VS State Of Bihar - 1996 0 Supreme(Pat) 395], concluding with “no order as to costs”; [Mungeshwar Yadav VS State of Bihar - 2017 0 Supreme(Pat) 350], paras 1-12 (detailed)
"Section 15 and 16 – title certificates" - When scheme finalizes under Sections 15-16, raiyat certificates are issued and considered conclusive proof of title under the Act; this is part of the Act’s self-contained adjudicatory framework and affects subsequent Civil Court actions - [00800010965] (contextual reference from source set; focus on 15-16 in related materials); [S. M Ehteshamul Hasan Rehmani VS State of Bihar - 2024 0 Supreme(Pat) 430], paras 102-108 (discussing finality and limitations)
"Limitations on civil court challenges post-closure" - After closure under Section 26A, civil court challenges are generally barred, with limited exceptions if fraud or fundamental irregularities are shown; the Supreme Court has repeatedly held consolidation orders are subject to High Court Article 226 review for patently improper or perverse findings - [S. M Ehteshamul Hasan Rehmani VS State of Bihar - 2024 0 Supreme(Pat) 430], paras 102-108; [Mosst. Gudhani Devi VS State of Bihar - 1985 0 Supreme(Pat) 129], paras 1-4
"Section 37/37-A/37-B framework" - While not exhaustively covered in all sources, consolidation authorities have quasi-judicial powers with provisions for appeals and revisions; later Supreme Court references discuss the interaction with civil courts and the Ninth Schedule protection aspects - [Ram Sakal Singh VS State Of Bihar - 2009 0 Supreme(Pat) 1238], paras 102-108; [S. M Ehteshamul Hasan Rehmani VS State of Bihar - 2024 0 Supreme(Pat) 430], para 37
"Practical takeaway" - Section 2(9) defines land expansively; Section 3 initiates a consolidation process; Section 4(c) abates pending suits/appeals; Section 10(2) objections must be timely though may be condoned; Section 35 revisions lie with Director/Additional/Joint Directors; Section 26A closure restricts rehearing in civil courts; overall, the Act creates a comprehensive, albeit complex, framework for consolidation with limited judicial interference - [00800032262 summary], [Jhuri Bind VS State Of Bihar - 2007 0 Supreme(Pat) 1090], [Munaka Singh VS State of Bihar - 1998 0 Supreme(Pat) 20], [Nand Kishore Singh VS State Of Bihar - 1998 0 Supreme(Pat) 318], [Ram Sakal Singh VS State Of Bihar - 2009 0 Supreme(Pat) 1238]
"Key controlling precedents" - Gorakh Nath Dubey v. Hari Narain Singh (AIR 1973 SC 2451) referenced for abatement principles under Section 4(C) and 5(2); Ram Dular v. Dy. Director of Consolidation (1994 Supp (2) SCC 198) cited in reconsiderations; Mirza Sulaiman Beg v. Harihar Mahto (1985) for expansive interpretation of Section 2(9) land; Ramkrishun/ Rabindra Thakur line of cases cited for orchard exclusion and bar applicability - [Mungeshwar Yadav VS State of Bihar - 2017 0 Supreme(Pat) 350], para 14; [Asharafi Singh VS Kapildeo Rai (Dead) - 2006 7 Supreme 357], etc.; [Bihar Rajya Adhivakta Sangh VS State Of Bihar - 1995 0 Supreme(Pat) 89], etc.
Notes:- The above bullets synthesize multiple reported decisions around Section 2 (definition of land), Section 3/4(C) abatement, Section 5 transfer sanctions, Section 9/9A/10/12A/13/26A procedures, Section 35 revisions, and related issues such as apprenticeship of districts into urban authorities, mutual exclusivity of Sections 15-16, and the interplay with civil courts. - For precise case citations and para numbers, consult the specific judgments in the provided sources (e.g., Mosst. Gudhani Devi VS State of Bihar - 1985 0 Supreme(Pat) 129, Sheoji Misha Son Of Ram Autar Mishra VS State Of Bihar - 2009 0 Supreme(Pat) 967, Krishna Nand Singh VS State Of Bihar - 1997 0 Supreme(Pat) 30, Munaka Singh VS State of Bihar - 1998 0 Supreme(Pat) 20, Jhuri Bind VS State Of Bihar - 2007 0 Supreme(Pat) 1090, 00800056789, etc.).
(1) With the object of effecting consolidation of holdings for the purpose of better cultivation of lands in any area, the State Government may, after such enquiries as it may deem fit, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare its intention to make a scheme for consolidation of holdings in that area.
(2) The substance of the notification shall be announced by beat of drum in the villages comprised in the notified area and copies of the notification shall be hung up at the offices of all the Gram Panchayats, if any, the police station, the offices of the Anchal Adhikaris and the village Cutcheries of the State Government for collection of rent in such area.
Upon the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3 in the official gazette the consequences, as hereinafter set forth, shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, from the date specified in the notification till the close of the consolidation operation, ensue in the area to which the notification relates, namely
1. Subs by Bihar Act 27 of 1975
(a) the district or part thereof, as the case may be, shall be, deemed to be under consolidation operations and duty of preparing and maintaining the record-of-rights and the village map of each village shall be performed by the Director of Consolidation, who shall prepare or maintain them, as the case may be, in the manner prescribed;
(b) no suit or other legal proceedings in respect of any land in such areas shall be entertai
.-(1) It shall be lawful for State Government at any time to cancel the notification made under Section 3 in respect of the whole or part of the area specified therein.
1. Ins. by Act 27 of 1975
(2) Where a notification has been cancelled in respect of any unit under subsection (1) such area shall, subject to the final orders relating to the correction of land record, if any passed on or before the date of such cancellation, ceases to be under consolidation operations with effect from the date of the cancellation.]
Section 4(a) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, deals with the consequences of the notification issued under Section 3 of the Act, particularly regarding the abatement of pending suits and proceedings related to land rights within the consolidation area. It plays a crucial role in consolidating land holdings by restricting civil court jurisdiction during consolidation operations.
Section 4(a) stipulates that once a notification under Section 3 is published, all suits and proceedings pending before any court or authority concerning rights, interests, or interests in land within the specified area shall stand abated. This includes suits for declaration of rights, interest, or title in land, as well as other proceedings related to land interests.
Section 4(a) itself does not prescribe specific punishments or penalties. Its primary function is to restrict jurisdiction of civil courts and other authorities over pending land suits during consolidation. Any violation, such as proceeding with a suit post-notification, may be deemed illegal and subject to contempt or other legal remedies under general law.
In summary, Section 4(a) functions as a vital statutory mechanism to ensure that all pending land-related suits and proceedings are automatically abated upon the issuance of a notification under Section 3, thereby consolidating land holdings efficiently and preventing conflicting litigations during the process. Its constitutional validity and scope have been consistently upheld by courts, emphasizing its role in land management and reform within the framework of the Act.
2[(1) After the date of publication of preparation of register of lands and statement of principles under sub-section (1) of Section 10 no person shall transfer any land in the notified area by way of sale, gift, exchange or partition without the previous sanction of the Consolidation Officer and if the sanction is granted, such transfer or partition, as the case may be, shall be, subject to the rights and liabilities affected to the land under the scheme of consolidation prepared with respect to that area.]
1. Subs. by Bihar Act 27 of 1975
2. Sec. 5 renumbered as sub sec. (1) by Bihar Act 35 of 1982
3[(2) The provision of sub-section (1) shall take effect from the date the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3 has been issued.]
3. Added
On being satisfied that preparation of the scheme of consolidation in" any unit or units, after publication of register of land and statement of principles under sub-section (1) of Section 10 is likely to take time and enforcement of the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 5 shall cause hardship to raiyats or under-raiyats of such unit or units, it will be lawful for the Director of Consolidation to exempt such unit or units, from the operation of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 5 for a specified period and such exemption shall be notified in the unit concerned by a general notice.]
1. Ins by Bihar Act 35 of 1982
.-(1) A person intending to transfer or partition any land shall make an application for sanction under Section 5 in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars together with notices of the intended transfer or partition in the prescribed form and the process fees prescribed for the service thereof on the parties named in the application as well as for affixing copies thereof on the land, in the office of the Consolidation Officer and in such other places as may be prescribed.
(2) The Consolidation Officer shall fix a date for hearing and cause the notices specifying the date so fixed to be served on the parties named in the petition by registered post or in such other manner as may be prescribed and shall also cause copies of the notice to be affixed on the land and other places referred to in subsection (1).
(3) On th
1(1) In each unit comprised in the notified areas the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall set up a Village Advisory Committee which shall consist of the members of the Executive Committee of the Gram Panchayat of the village:
1. Subs. by Bihar Act 27 of 1975
Provided that where more than one village is included in a Gram Panchayat the Village Advisory Committee shall consist, of those members of Executive Committee who are residents of the villages concerned and such other raiyats and under-raiyats as the Assistant Consolidation Officer may appoint:
Provided further that where no such Gram Panchayat has been established the Village Advisory Committee shall consist of such persons as the Assistant Consolidation Officer may appoint in consultation with the raiyats and under raiyats of the vill
.-(1) Save as provided in sub-section (2) as soon as may be after the publication of a notification under section 3 an up-to-date record-of-rights, in respect of all lands comprised in the notified area, together with a map shall be prepared in accordance with the provisions of Chapter X of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (Act VIII of 1885), or as the case may be, Chapter XII of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (Ben. Act VI of 1908) or the Santhal Parganas Settlement Regulation, 1872 (Regulation III of 1872); 2[ or the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (Bihar Act 28 of 1975)]:
2. Add. by Bihar Act 35 of 1982
Provided that the State Government may, by rules made in this behalf, make such modifications in the provisions of the said Acts and Regulation as may be necessary for the expeditious preparation of the record-o
(1) The Assistant Consolidation Officer or the Consolidation Officer may either on an application or of their own motion, partition joint holdings.
1. Ins by Bihar Act 27 of 1975
(2) The partition of joint holdings shall be effected on the basis of shares:
Provided that where the raiyats concerned agree, it may be effected on the basis of specific plots.]
.-(1) When the record-of-rights and map have been or are deemed to have been brought up-to-date there shall be determined, the valuation of each plot after taking into consideration the opinion of the Village Advisory Committee, of such raiyats as may be available and after taking into consideration its productivity, location and availability of irrigation facilities, if any.
2. Subs. by Bihar Act 35 of 1982
(2) There shall be prepared in the prescribed form
(i) a register of lands belonging to raiyats which shall contain the following particulars, namely
(a) the name of the raiyat;
(b) the areas and the serial numbers of the plots of land held by the raiyat;
(
The Assistant Consolidation Officer shall prepare after considering the opinion of the Village Advisory Committee and such raiyats as may be available in respect of each unit under consolidation operations, a statement in the prescribed manner (hereinafter called the statement of principles) setting forth the principles to be followed in carrying out the consolidation operations in the unit. The statement of principles shall also contain the following:-
2. Subs. by Bihar Act 35 of 1982
(a) details of areas, as far as they may be determined at this stage, to be earmarked for expansion of habit(3.tion including areas for habitation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and landless persons in the unit, and for such other public purposes as may be prescribed;
&
.-(1) The registers prepared under sub-section (2) of Section 9 and the statement of principles prepared under Section 9A shall be published in the manner prescribed and shall remain published for not less than 30 days.
1. Sec. 10 , 10A and 10B Subs. for Sec. 10 vide Bihar Act 27 of 1975
(2) Any person may, within 45 days of the date of the publication of the register under sub-section (1) file before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, objection in respect thereof, disputing the correctness and nature of entries in the records or in the statement of principles.
(3) The Assistant Consolidation Officer shall, after hearing the persons interested and after such enquiries as may be necessary, decide the objection, settle the disputes or correct the mistakes, as far as may be, by way of compromis
The Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, aims to consolidate agricultural holdings and prevent the fragmentation of land in Bihar. Section 10 specifically addresses the publication of registers of lands and the process for raising objections against such publications.
Section 10 outlines the procedure for the publication of land registers and the statement of principles. It provides a framework for individuals to file objections regarding entries in these registers within a specified timeframe.
The scope of Section 10 encompasses:- The process of recording land ownership and rights.- The legal framework for addressing disputes arising from the consolidation process.- The authority of consolidation officers to adjudicate on objections raised.
While Section 10 itself does not prescribe specific punishments, it establishes a legal framework that can lead to administrative actions against parties who fail to comply with the provisions of the Act.
This commentary provides an overview of Section 10 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, highlighting its essential elements, scope, and relevant legal interpretations.
No question in respect of any entry made in the map or registers prepared under Section 9 or the statement of principles prepared under Section 9A relating to the Consolidation area, which might or ought to have been, raised under Section 10 but has not been raised, shall not be raised or heard at any subsequent stage of the Consolidation proceeding.
1[(1) All matters relating to changes and transfers affecting any rights or interests recorded in the register of land published under sub-section (1) of Section 10 for which cause of action had not arisen when proceedings under Section 8 and 9 were started or were in progress may be raised before the Consolidation Officer within thirty days of cause of action, but not later than the date of notification under Section 26-A or under sub-section (1) of Section 4A.]
1. Subs by Bihar Act 35of1982
(2) The provisions of Sections 8 and 9 shall mutatis mutandis apply to the hearing and decision of any matter raised under sub-section (1) as if it were a matter raised under the aforesaid section.]
After expiry of the specified period of exemption as provided in Section 5A, but before the publication of the draft scheme of consolidation under sub-section (1) of Section 12, the register of lands prepared under sub-section (2) of Section 9 and the statement of principles prepared under section 9A and published under sub-section (1) of Section 10 and corrected under sub-sections (3),(4),(5) and (6) of Section 10, pertaining to the units concerned shall be re-published in the manner prescribed and any person may within twenty days of such re-publication file before the Assistant Consolidation Officer objection in respect thereof disputing the correctness and nature of entries in the register of lands or in the statement of principles, if cause of action for such objections has arisen after publication of the register of lands and the statement of principles under sub-section (1) of Section 10.]
&n
On being satisfied that in the register of lands published under sub-section (1) or corrected under sub-sections (3),(4),(5), or (6) of Section 10, a substantial number of raiyats or under-raiyats for sufficient and unavoidable reasons could not avail of the opportunity to place their claims under subsection (2) of Section 10 the Deputy Director of Consolidation for reasons to be recorded in writing may order the re-publication of the register or lands or the statement of principles or both again in the manner prescribed. Any person may within twenty days of such re-publication file before the Assistant Consolidation Officer objections in respect thereof disputing the correctness and nature of entries in the register of lands or in the statement of principles or in both, now withstanding the provisions of Section 10A.]
1. Sec. 10C, 10D and 10E ins by Bihar Act 35 of 1982
The provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) of Section 10 shall mutatis mutandis apply to the objections of any matter raised under sections 10C and 10D but the dispute which has been decided earlier in accordance with the provisions of sub-sections(3),(4),(5) or (6) of Section 10 shall not be re-opened on re-publication of the register of lands or the statement of principles or both.]
1. 1. Sec. 10C, 10D and 10E ins by Bihar Act 35 of 1982
As soon as may be, after the objections, If any, made under sub-section (2) of Section 10 have been disposed of, the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall visit the village concerned on a date of which previous notice shall have been given in the prescribed manner and after considering the advice of the Village Advisory Committee and such raiyats as may be available, prepare the draft scheme for consolidation of holdings in the notified area:
2. Subs by Bihar Act 27 of 1975
Provided that if the Assistant Consolidation Officer does not accept the advice of the Village Advisory committee or of the raiyats on any matter, he shall, before preparing the draft scheme refer such matter for decision to the Assistant Director of Consolidation whose order thereon shall be final.
(2) The Village Advisory
.-(1) After the draft consolidation scheme has been prepared, the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall publish the scheme in the Unit and give a general notice that all the raiyats may obtain relevant extract of the scheme free of cost.
1. Sec. 12, 12A and 12B ins by Bihar Act 27 of 1975
(2) Subject to the provisions contained in Section 10A, any person, whose right or interest is substantially prejudiced or affected by the draft consolidation scheme or who disputed the propriety and correctness of the entries in the draft consolidation scheme or the extracts furnished therefrom, may within 30 days of the date of publication of the draft consolidation scheme file an objection before the Assistant Consolidation Officer stating-
(i) the nature of his interest or right in or over any land;
&n
.-(1) All objections received by the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall as soon as may be, after the expiry of the period specified in Section 12 be submitted by him to the Consolidation Officer who shall dispose of the same, in the manner hereinafter laid down, after notice is given to the parties concerned and the Village Advisory Committee.
1. Sec. 12, 12A and 12B ins by Bihar Act 27 of 1975
(2) Any person aggrieved by the order of Consolidation Officer under subsection (1) may, within thirty days of the date of the order, file an appeal before the Assistant Director of Consolidation whose decision shall, except as otherwise provided by or under this Act, be final.
(3) The Consolidation Officer shall, before deciding the objection and the Assistant Director of Consolidation may, before d
The Consolidation Officer or the Assistant Director of Consolidation, as the case may be, on being satisfied that material injustice is likely to be caused to a number of raiyats or under raiyats in giving effect to the draft consolidation scheme as prepared by the Assistant Consolidation Officer or as subsequently modified by the Consolidation Officer, as the case may be, and that a fair and proper allotment of land to the raiyats or the under-raiyats of the unit is not possible without revising the draft consolidation scheme or getting a fresh one prepared, it shall be lawful, for reasons to be recorded in writing for-
1. Sec. 12, 12A and 12B Subs for Sec, 12 by Bihar 27 of 1975
(i) the Consolidation Officer, to revise the draft consolidation scheme, after giving to the raiyats or under raiyats concerned a reasonable opportunity of bei
.-(1) The Assistant Director of Consolidation shall confirm the draft consolidation scheme-
2. Subs by Bihar Act 27 of 1975
(a) if no objections are filed within the time specified in Section 12; or
(b) where such objections are filed after such modification or alterations, as may be necessary, in view of the order passed under sub-sections (1) to (4) of Section 12A.
(2) The draft consolidation scheme so confirmed shall be published in the unit, and except as otherwise provided by or under this Act, shall be final.
(3) (i) Where the allotments made under section 11 are not modified under Section 12A and are confirmed under sub-Section (1), the entries contained in the, extracts issued under sub-section (
.-(1) The Consolidation Officer shall fix the date with effect from which the final consolidation scheme shall come into force and shall, notify the same in the unit in the prescribed manner.
1. Subs by Bihar Act 27 of 1975
(2) On and after the said date a raiyat or an under-raiyat shall be entitled to possession of the plots allotted to him.
(3) Every raiyat or under-raiyat getting tree, bamboo-clumps, wells and other improvements existing on the plots allotted to him in pursuance of the enforcement of the final consolidation scheme shall, on getting possession, be liable for payment to the former raiyat thereof amount to be determined in the manner prescribed for the trees, bamboo-clumps, wells and other improvements existing on the plots allotted to him.
(1) The Consolidation Officer shall grant to every raiyat to whom a holding has been allotted in pursuance of a scheme of consolidation a certificate in the prescribed form containing the prescribed particulars. Such certificate shall be conclusive proof of the title of such raiyat to such holding and he shall be liable for payment of such rent as may be specified in the certificate.
2[(2) A similar certificate of transfer shall be granted to every under-raiyat, whether having a right of occupancy or not in any land allotted to him in pursuance of the scheme and the certificate shall be conclusive proof of the title of such under raiyat to such land and he shall be liable to payment of such rent and to such person as may be specified in the certificate.]
2. Subs by ibid
When certificates of transfer have been granted to the raiyats and under-raiyats under section 15, the scheme confirmed under Section 13 shall, in super session of the up-to-date record-of-rights prepared under Section 8, shall be deemed to be the record-of-rights prepared and finally published under Chapter X of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (VIII of 1885), or as the case may be, Chapter XII of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (Ben Act VI of 1908), or the Santhal Parganas Settlement Regulation, 1872 (Reg. III of 1872)
A raiyat shall have the same rights in the land allotted to him in pursuance of the scheme of consolidation as he had in his original holding.
.-(1) If all the raiyats affected by the scheme of consolidation confirmed under Section 13, agree to enter into possession of the holdings allotted to them thereunder, the Consolidation Officer may allow them to enter into such possession from the date fixed under sub-section (1) of Section 14.
1. Ins by Bihar Act 27 of 1975
(2) If all the raiyats as aforesaid do not agree to enter into possession under sub-section (1), they shall be entitled to possession of the holdings allotted to them from the commencement of the agricultural year next following the date of the publication of the scheme under sub-section (2) of Section 1-3 and the Consolidation Officer shall, if necessary, put them in possession of the holdings to which they are so entitled with standing crops, if any, and for so doing, shall have all the powers including the power
1[(1) If any holding included in a scheme of consolidation which has come into operation under Section 14 is subject to any lease, mortgage or other encumbrance, shall, with effect from the date on which possession is delivered or entered into under Section 17 A, be deemed to be transferred and attached to the holding under the scheme to the raiyat or to such part of it as the Consolidation Officer may direct and shall cease to have any effect against the holding from which it is so transferred.]
1. Subs by Bihar Act 35 of 1982
(2) If the holding to which a lease, mortgage or other encumbrance is transferred under sub-section (1) is of less market value than the original holding from which it is transferred, the lessee, mortgagee or other encumbrance, as the case may be, shall subject to the provisions of Section 20, be entitled to the
.-(1) Where possession over standing crops is also delivered under Section 17, the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall determine in the manner prescribed, the amount payable in respect of such crops by the raiyat or under-raiyat who has been put in possession.
2. Subs by Bihar Act 27 of 1975
(2) Any person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (1) may within 30 days of the date of the order prefer an appeal before the Consolidation Officer whose decision thereon shall be final.]
(1) Where a raiyat from whom amount is recoverable under this Act fails to pay the sum within the period prescribed therefor, the person entitled to receive it, may in addition to any other mode of recovery open to him apply to the Collector, within such time as may be prescribed, for recovery on his behalf of the amount due to him as if it were an arrear of land revenue payable to the Government.
(2) Where any amount payable under this Act, is not paid whether in whole or in part, within three months of the date of obtaining possession under Section 17 interest at the rate of six per centum per annum shall be charged on the amount so payable.]
2. Subs by Bihar Act 27 of 1975
No instrument in writing shall be necessary in order to give effect to a transfer involved in carrying out any scheme of consolidation of holdings; and no instrument, if executed, shall require any stamp duty or registration.
The provisions of any other law for the time being in force, imposing restrictions on, or providing for the payment of landlord's registration fee for the transfer of any land, shall not apply to transfers involved in carrying out any scheme of consolidation of holdings under this Act.
For carrying out any of the purposes of this Act, a loan may be granted under the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883 (XIX of 1883) or the Agriculturists' Loans Act, 1884 (XII of 1884), to a raiyat or an under raiyat having a right of occupancy in the land held by him.
The cost of consolidation proceedings shall be assessed in the prescribed manner and shall be recoverable in whole or in part as the State Government may determine from the raiyat whose holdings are effected by the scheme of consolidation:
Provided that the amount so recovered shall not exceed four rupees per acre.
(1) Where as a result of contribution for public purposes under the provisions of Section 11, the area of the original total holding of raiyat is reduced, the rent, payable for the holding shall be reduced in the same proportion as the area so contributed bears to the original total area of the holding and the reduced rent shall be shown in the draft consolidation scheme.
1. Subs by Bihar Act 27 of 1975
(2) A raiyat aggrieved by the reduction made under sub-section (1) may, within 15 days of the date of publication of the draft consolidation scheme under Section 12, file an objection before the 2[Assistant Director] of Consolidation whose order thereon shall be final.]
2. Subs by Bihar Act 35 of 1982
.(1)(a) Every raiyat any part of whose holding has been contributed for public purposes under this Act, shall be paid for the land so contributed, amount equal to four times the annual rent reduced under Section 25.
1. Subs by Bihar Act 27 of 1975
(b) In case of trees, bamboo-clumps, wells and other improvements falling within the land so contributed the amount payable shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 14.
(2) The amount payable to a raiyat shall, after adjustment of the cost of operation under this Act, if any, be paid to him in cash.
(3) Where any land, in respect of which any amount is paid under sub-section (1) is in the occupation of an under-raiyat, there shall be paid to the under-raiyat out of the amount payab
.-(1) As soon as may be, after fresh maps and records have been prepared and certificates of transfer have been issued to the raiyats under the scheme, the State Government shall issue notification in the Official Gazette stating that the consolidation operations have been closed in the unit:
Provided that the issue of notification under this section shall not affect the powers of the State Government to fix, distribute and recover the cost of operation under this Act.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), any order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction in cases or writ filed under the provisions of the Constitution of India, or in cases or proceedings pending under this Act on the date of issue of the notification under sub-section (1), shall be given effect to by such authorities as may be prescribed and the
1[x x x]
1. Omitted by Act 27 of 1975
When a scheme of consolidation has been confirmed under Section 13, no land in any notified area shall be acquired by the State Government or any local authority so as to leave a fragment.
2[Two or more raiyats having lands in an area which is not a notified area may, with the permission of the Collector of the district, consolidate their holdings voluntarily and the provisions of Sections 21 and 22 shall apply to any transfer involved in such consolidation.]
2. Subs by ibid
(1) The Consolidation Officer may recognise a consolidation scheme in respect of a village, within a consolidation area prepared voluntarily by the tenants of the village, where he is satisfied that it conforms to the broad principles of consolidation under this Act and has the support of all the tenants concerned and is otherwise fair to all concerned.
1. Ins by Bihar Act 27 of 1975
(2) The consolidation scheme recognised under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to have been prepared and confirmed under the provisions of this Act, and shall be enforced thereunder.]
3[Omitted]
3. Omitted by ibid
Legal Comments
"Section 30" - Contextual scope uncertain in provided sources; primary references focus on Sections 4(C), 10, 9, 3, 5, 32, 37, 37-B, 26A, etc. - [Various sources compiled on Bihar Consolidation Act, 1956]
"Abatement under Sec. 4(C) is mandatory upon notification under Sec. 3" - Section 4(C) abates suits and proceedings for declaration of rights in land within notified consolidation areas; abatement is automatic on publication of notification under Sec. 3; execution/registration matters may be treated as excepted or differently determined per case law [Ezaz Ahmad VS Sk. Aurangzeb - 2013 0 Supreme(Pat) 768], [00800015740]-style summaries.
"Partition suits fall within Sec. 4(C) abatement (subject to exceptions)" - Many judgments treat partition suits or proceedings for declaration of rights in land as abatable under Sec. 4(C) when within notified area; however, there are contrary opinions where certain execution-only or post-notice proceedings are excluded (e.g., where preliminary decrees have achieved finality or where matters are execution-like) [Hari Mohan Thakur VS Mahendra Narain Chand - 1986 0 Supreme(Pat) 298], [Jiawan Pandey VS Mahendra Rai - 1984 0 Supreme(Pat) 86], [Bhageloo Sah VS Sheo Shankar Singh - 1984 0 Supreme(Pat) 115], [Hari Mohan Thakur VS Mahendra Narain Chand - 1986 0 Supreme(Pat) 298]-noted.
"Orchards/Non-agricultural lands may be exempt from abatement under Sec. 4(C)" - Orchard lands often treated as excluded from consolidation for purposes of compactness; thus suits relating to orchards may not abate under Sec. 4(C) (orchard excluded from 'land' or 'holding') [Girja Rai VS Ghafoor Mian - 1983 0 Supreme(Pat) 307], [Mst. Siya Kuer VS Keshar Kuer - 1988 0 Supreme(Pat) 411].
"Section 4(C) is considered mandatory and not to be narrowly construed" - Courts have described Sec. 4(C) as mandatory; the court cannot lightly deny abatement when conditions are satisfied; but some opinions acknowledge exceptions where abatement would frustrate substantive rights or when matter is not within consolidated land rights [Mossomat Kalia Devi VS Khub Lall Mahto - 1981 0 Supreme(Pat) 41], [Praveen Kumar Mishra VS State of Bihar - 2023 0 Supreme(Pat) 741]-style.
"Civil Court jurisdiction vs. deemed courts" - Consolidation authorities are deemed courts with limited jurisdiction; generally their determinations on title can be final but can be challenged in Civil Court in limited circumstances; several Full Bench and later decisions discuss whether Sec. 37B or Sec. 37-A/B affect res judicata and appeal rights [00800032799], [Seikh Haidar Zan VS Md. Yusuf Ansari - 2000 0 Supreme(Pat) 420], [Ram Raji Sharma VS State Of Bihar - 2007 0 Supreme(Pat) 898], [Kalika Kaur Alias Kalika Singh VS State Of Bihar - 1989 0 Supreme(Pat) 353].
"Section 10A and limitation matters" - Objections not raised timely barred by Section 10A; revisional powers under Sec. 35 may or may not condone delays; time-bar issues frequently affect maintainability of revisions/appeals [Bhrigu Nath Tiwary VS State Of Bihar - 2007 0 Supreme(Pat) 368], [Anant Sah VS State of Bihar - 1996 0 Supreme(Pat) 49], [Paras Nath Shukla VS state of Bihar - 1996 0 Supreme(Pat) 753].
"Transfer/partition without sanction void; Sec. 5 and 32 interplay" - Transfers without sanction under Sec. 5 are void vis-a-vis consolidation; Section 32 imposes penalties; this applies to lands within notified areas; effect on rights between parties may differ from effect on consolidation records [Anant Sah VS State of Bihar - 1996 0 Supreme(Pat) 49], [Sitaram Singh VS State of Bihar - 1995 0 Supreme(Pat) 539], [Ram Raji Sharma VS State Of Bihar - 2007 0 Supreme(Pat) 898].
"Section 10A-penalties for objections filed after time barred" - Section 10A bars late objections; revisional authority can condone delay only if justified under Sec. 35; otherwise late objections are barred; matters of delegation of revision powers (Director vs Deputy Director) affect competence [Jhuri Bind VS State Of Bihar - 2007 0 Supreme(Pat) 1090], [Kabutari Devi VS Consolidation Officer, Kargahar, Rohtas - 2007 0 Supreme(Pat) 1091], [Krishna Singh VS Deputy Director Of Consolidation - 2008 0 Supreme(Pat) 890].
"Section 37 and 37-B: 'Deemed Courts' and finality" - Consolidation authorities are deemed courts; decisions on title are final subject to limited civil court scrutiny (Art. 226); however, some judgments hold that not all title questions are within consolidation jurisdiction; later Supreme Court discussions reaffirm both finality and permissible civil court challenges in specified conditions [Krishna Singh VS Deputy Director Of Consolidation - 2008 0 Supreme(Pat) 890], [00800032763], [Most. Prabhawati Kumari, wife of Late Baccha Singh VS State of Bihar - 2019 0 Supreme(Pat) 882].
"Section 3, 4, 9, 10, 26A interplay with notification" - Section 3 provides notification leading to consolidation; Section 9/10 deals with registers and rights; 26A deals with denotification/closure; post-notification actions influence abatement and revival rights; decisions sustaining denotification can affect pending suits [Seikh Haidar Zan VS Md. Yusuf Ansari - 2000 0 Supreme(Pat) 420], [Garju Sharma VS State of Bihar - 2006 0 Supreme(Pat) 42], [Krishak Sangathan VS State Of Bihar - 2002 0 Supreme(Pat) 885].
"Section 4(B) and 4(C) distinction—void vs voidable documents" - Section 4(B) and 4(C) distinguish void vs voidable documents; abatement depends on whether document is void (abates) or voidable (may not abate) depending on Full Bench cases; this affects gift deeds and cancellation suits [Mohd. Abid Hussain VS Sk. Sajjad Hnssain - 1992 0 Supreme(Pat) 127], [Jiawan Pandey VS Mahendra Rai - 1984 0 Supreme(Pat) 86], [Pachiya Devi VS Bishundeo Prasad Singh - 1985 0 Supreme(Pat) 278].
"Section 2(9) and land definition influences abatement scope" - Definition of land within the Act broad (2(9)) affecting what suits fall within abatement; some decisions stress that orchards are not land for consolidation and thus not abating [Mst. Siya Kuer VS Keshar Kuer - 1988 0 Supreme(Pat) 411], [00800006111].
"Section 4(C) abatement does not suspend civil actions if relief sought is not within consolidation’s scope" - Courts have held that abatement under 4(C) applies to suits for declaration of rights in land within notified area; suits seeking other relief (e.g., injunctions, easement declarations outside consolidation’s scope) may not abate; e.g., easement-by-customary-right not covered by 4(C) [Bhageloo Sah VS Sheo Shankar Singh - 1984 0 Supreme(Pat) 115].
"Effect of denotification on ongoing abated suits; revival rules" - Denotification may revive or allow revival of suits previously abated; post-denotification actions may require civil court actions for rights not adjudicated by consolidation authority; revival rules vary by decision [Garju Sharma VS State of Bihar - 2006 0 Supreme(Pat) 42], [Jagat Singh VS State Of Bihar - 2006 0 Supreme(Pat) 917].
"Section 4(C) and ongoing partition decrees after preliminary decree" - Proceedings post-preliminary decree for final decree in partition not necessarily abated; execution-like steps following a final decree may escape abatement under 4(C) as they are execution rather than original declaratory actions [Hari Mohan Thakur VS Mahendra Narain Chand - 1986 0 Supreme(Pat) 298].
"Ordinance of Government notifications and court directives to complete consolidation" - Courts have issued directions to complete consolidation by fixed dates, and to monitor progress; this reflects policy aim rather than strict abatement mechanics but interacts with the timing of abatement and revival [Praveen Kumar Mishra VS State of Bihar - 2008 0 Supreme(Pat) 1093].
"Impact on gifts, adoptions, and Section 32 penalties" - Several cases deal with gift deeds and adoptions; Section 32 voids transfers contrary to Act; these decisions affect whether proceedings abate and how civil rights survive consolidation; see gift deed/voidable document jurisprudence [Most. Uttam Raj Kuer VS State Of Bihar - 2006 0 Supreme(Pat) 40], [Surendra Rai VS State of Bihar, through the District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur - 2015 0 Supreme(Pat) 281], [00800054097].
"Practical takeaway for practitioners" - When facing a consolidation notification (Sec. 3) and a parallel civil suit (title/possession or partition), anticipate abatement under Sec. 4(C) for suits seeking rights in land within the notified area, with exceptions for orchard/non-land matters; verify whether the matter is within 'land' or 'holding' per Sec. 2(9)/(2)(3); analyze whether post-notification steps are execution-like or declaratory to assess abatement risk and revival possibilities [Kalika Kaur Alias Kalika Singh VS State Of Bihar - 1989 0 Supreme(Pat) 353], [Bhageloo Sah VS Sheo Shankar Singh - 1984 0 Supreme(Pat) 115], [Hari Mohan Thakur VS Mahendra Narain Chand - 1986 0 Supreme(Pat) 298].
Note: The above bullet points are synthesized from the provided source set. Where a point lacks explicit support in the given sources, it has been omitted or framed narrowly to reflect the cited material. References correspond to the listed source IDs in square brackets.
.-(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of any law for the time being in force, no person shall transfer whether by sale gift or exchange any part of a plot which part is a fragment situate in a consolidated area except to a raiyat who has a plot continuous to the land sought to be transferred:
4. Subs by ibid
Provided that if the transfer is of the entire plot which is a fragment it may be in favour of any raiyat:
Provided further that there will be no bar to mortgage or transfer to a society or bank registered or deemed to be registered under the *Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (B. & O. Act VI of 1935) or the State Bank of India or a bank specified in column 2 of the First Schedule to the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 (Act 5 of 1970) or
The transfer of any land or fragment contrary to the provisions of this Act shall be void; and the owner of any land, so transferred shall be liable to pay such fine, not exceeding two hundred and fifty rupees, as the Collector of the district may, subject to the general orders of the State Government direct
The Director of Consolidation. or the Consolidation Officer or any person acting under his orders may, at any time, enter upon any land, other than a dwelling house, with such officers or other persons as he considers necessary and make a survey or take measurements thereof or do any other act which he considers to be necessary for carrying out any of his duties under this Act.
Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if the Consolidation Officer or the Assistant Director of Consolidation is satisfied that a clerical or arithmetical error apparent of the face on the record exists in any document prepared under any provision of this Act, he shall either on his own motion or on the application of any person interested, correct the same.]
1. Ins by Bihar Act 27 of 1975
(1) The State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, delegate any of its powers or functions under this Act to any officer not below the rank of a Collector.
(2) The Director of Consolidation may, with the sanction of the State Government, delegate any of his powers or functions under this Act to any officer not below the rank of a Deputy Collector.
2[(3) Where powers are to be exercised or duties are to be performed by any authority under this Act or the rules made thereunder, such powers or duties may also be exercised or performed any an authority superior to it.
2. Ins by ibid
The Director of Consolidation may on his own motion or on the application of any party or on reference being made by any subordinate authority, call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by such authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceeding; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by such authority in the cases or proceedings, and may after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit.]
1. Subs by Bihar Act 27 of 1975
Except as provided in this Act, no appeal or revision shall lie from any order passed under this Act.
SupremeToday AI Service seems to be Down for a While!
No Civil Court shall entertain any suit or application to vary or set aside any decision or order given or passed under this Act with respect to any other matter for which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act.] .
1. Subs by Bihar Act 27 of 1975
Legal Comments
"Section 37" - Bar of Civil Court jurisdiction in title matters during consolidation; finality of consolidation orders; civil court cannot entertain suits to vary or set aside such decisions absent fraud or non-compliance - [Ram Balak Singh VS State of Bihar - 2024 4 Supreme 183]
"Section 37-A / 37-B" - Consolidation authorities are deemed courts of competent jurisdiction; they have Civil Court-like powers (attendance, evidence, contempt) but remain under executive supervision; judgments can be reviewed by High Courts under writs; not true full-fledged courts - [Junaid Khan VS State Of Bihar - 1995 0 Supreme(Pat) 365]
"Section 3 (Notification) & 4 (Abatement) & 4(C)" - Once a notification under section 3 is issued, pending suits and proceedings relating to land in the notified area abate; revival only via final scheme and limited reopenings per jurisprudence - [Most. Prabhawati Kumari, wife of Late Baccha Singh VS State of Bihar - 2019 0 Supreme(Pat) 882], [Mossomat Kalia Devi VS Khub Lall Mahto - 1981 0 Supreme(Pat) 41], [Mst. Siya Kuer VS Keshar Kuer - 1988 0 Supreme(Pat) 411]
"Abatement vs. Non-Abatement" - Section 4(C) generally mandates abatement of suits for declaration of rights or title in land during consolidation; however voidable vs void documents can affect abatement status (e.g., voidable gifts treated differently) - [Jiawan Pandey VS Mahendra Rai - 1984 0 Supreme(Pat) 86], [Mst. Siya Kuer VS Keshar Kuer - 1988 0 Supreme(Pat) 411], [Ramnaresh Thakur VS Kanhaiya Thakur - 1989 0 Supreme(Pat) 235]
"Section 4(b) vs 4(c)" - 4(b) and 4(c) distinctions matter: some cases hold homestead/orchard/baswari may be exempt after crossing Section 10; others hold abatement for areas within consolidation; context-specific - [Jitu Bhagat VS Ram Prasad Bhagat - 2006 0 Supreme(Pat) 592], [Mst. Siya Kuer VS Keshar Kuer - 1988 0 Supreme(Pat) 411]
"Abatement with respect to partitions and deeds" - Partition suits and deeds of gift may abate under 4(C) if within land subject to consolidation, unless the document is voidable (requires court adjudication) - [Jiawan Pandey VS Mahendra Rai - 1984 0 Supreme(Pat) 86], [Ramnaresh Thakur VS Kanhaiya Thakur - 1989 0 Supreme(Pat) 235]
"Judicial review limits" - While consolidation orders are final under Section 37, High Courts may exercise writ jurisdiction to correct per Article 226 when there is non-compliance with law, fraud, or absence of jurisdiction - [Ram Balak Singh VS State of Bihar - 2024 4 Supreme 183], [Seikh Haidar Zan VS Md. Yusuf Ansari - 2000 0 Supreme(Pat) 420]
"Deemed Courts" - Consolidation officers, Assistant Directors, and Directors may be treated as "deemed courts" for purposes of processing objections/appeals; not absolute substitutes for Civil Courts; subject to Articles 32/226/227 review - [Junaid Khan VS State Of Bihar - 1995 0 Supreme(Pat) 365]
"Section 32 interpretation" - Transfers contrary to the Act are void and liable to penalties; supports the view that consolidation Act governs title rights during operation and limits post-operation challenges - [Panna Devi W/o Vindhyachal Ojha VS State Of Bihar Through The Secretary, Revenue And Land Responents Reforms Deptt. , Govt, Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna - 2010 0 Supreme(Pat) 1223], [Surendra Rai VS State of Bihar, through the District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur - 2015 0 Supreme(Pat) 281]
"Criminal Proceedings (Section 145 CrPC) interplay" - Proceedings under Section 145 CrPC can be stayed/dropped where consolidation decisions already determine possession rights; magistrate is bound by consolidation orders if properly issued - [Ram Nihora Singh VS Ram Sanjwan Singh - Crimes (1994)], [Ram Nihora Singh VS Ram Sanjwan Singh - 1994 0 Supreme(Pat) 172]
"Record of Rights" - Entries in the record of rights are not conclusive title; however, where consolidation authorities decide rights, those findings gain strong evidentiary weight and may bind civil disputes unless vitiated - [Seikh Haidar Zan VS Md. Yusuf Ansari - 2000 0 Supreme(Pat) 420], [Ram Balak Singh VS State of Bihar - 2024 4 Supreme 183]
"Revision/Competency of Revisional Authorities" - Deputy Director/Director of Consolidation revision powers; improper delegation or lack of jurisdiction to hear revisions can be quashed and remitted for fresh hearing - [Jhuri Bind VS State Of Bihar - 2007 0 Supreme(Pat) 1090], [Basgit Singh VS Deputy Director Of Consolidation - 2007 0 Supreme(Pat) 1086], [Seikh Haidar Zan VS Md. Yusuf Ansari - 2000 0 Supreme(Pat) 420]
"Conflicts with Ninth Schedule / Basic Structure" - Amendments placed in Ninth Schedule limit constitutional challenges, with challenge limited to basic structure concerns (I.R. Coelho lineage); prior Full Bench conflict resolved in light of Ninth Schedule inclusion - [Most. Prabhawati Kumari, wife of Late Baccha Singh VS State of Bihar - 2019 0 Supreme(Pat) 882]
"Section 15 (Certificates of Title)" - Minority view (approved in some Full Bench decisions) held that Certificates issued by consolidation officers conferred conclusive title in certain contexts; later discussions depend on Ninth Schedule status and basic structure constraints - [Anandi Prasad VS Nandan Das - 1984 0 Supreme(Pat) 131], [Seikh Haidar Zan VS Md. Yusuf Ansari - 2000 0 Supreme(Pat) 420]
"Record of Rights vs. Title" - Revenue entries are not definitive title; consolidation authorities may determine rights akin to civil courts, but civil courts cannot be reopened to reassess those determinations once final - [Ram Balak Singh VS State of Bihar - 2024 4 Supreme 183], [Seikh Haidar Zan VS Md. Yusuf Ansari - 2000 0 Supreme(Pat) 420]
"Section 3 vs. Section 26A (Validation & Ninth Schedule)" - Ninth Schedule placement limits challenges to constitutional validity; validity of VII decisions remains subject to basic-structure scrutiny rather than Art 13/14 scrutiny in many views - [Most. Prabhawati Kumari, wife of Late Baccha Singh VS State of Bihar - 2019 0 Supreme(Pat) 882]
"Gorakh Nath Dubey lineage" - Transfer in excess of power (ultra vires transfer) can be questioned by consolidation authorities; Supreme Court references support limiting civil challenges to transfers decided under consolidation - [Krishna Singh VS Deputy Director Of Consolidation - 2008 0 Supreme(Pat) 890]
"Private Mosque / Non- agricultural land" - Act may not apply to non-agricultural land uses (e.g., mosque sites); consolidation applicability hinges on Section 2(9) definition of land and agricultural nexus - [Hafizan Bibi VS Mouddin - 2015 0 Supreme(Pat) 366]
"Interplay with other Acts" - Cross-references to CPC, Specific Relief Act, and Evidence Act; courts often harmonize to ensure that consolidation outcomes guide subsequent actions unless violations of due process occur - [Ram Balak Singh VS State of Bihar - 2024 4 Supreme 183], [Deo Sundari Devi VS Ramanuj Singh - 2006 0 Supreme(Pat) 1272]
"Practical effect on litigation strategy" - Because consolidation orders have finality and civil courts are barred in many contexts, plaintiffs often must pursue evidentiary/constitutional avenues rather than direct title suits in Civil Court during consolidation; however exceptions exist where jurisdiction is preserved by statutory carve-outs - [Dipnarain Chaudhary VS State Of Bihar - 1984 0 Supreme(Pat) 395], [S. C. Yadav VS S. P. Seth - 1992 0 Supreme(Pat) 57]
"Implementation of directions (Section 7 / 542)" - Final directions and implementation of revision arguments are assigned to Consolidation Officer-cum-Circle Officer for execution where finality has accrued; correct procedural steps are critical to avoid void or voidable outcomes - [Praveen Kumar Mishra VS State of Bihar - 2023 0 Supreme(Pat) 741]
"Abatement revival after closure" - If consolidation closes with notification under Section 26, abated suits may revive under certain conditions; otherwise revived actions must conform to consolidation determinations - [Ram Balak Singh VS State of Bihar - 2024 4 Supreme 183], [Jagat Singh VS State Of Bihar - 2006 0 Supreme(Pat) 917]
"Overall jurisprudence" - Section 37 creates a robust bar to civil suits challenging consolidation outcomes; however, a body of cases recognizes exceptions for natural justice, due process, or non-fulfillment of statutory requirements, allowing civil action in limited circumstances - [Gauri Shanker Singh VS State Of Bihar - 1988 0 Supreme(Pat) 329], [S. C. Yadav VS S. P. Seth - 1992 0 Supreme(Pat) 55]
Note: The above summarises key themes and cross-references specific to Section 37 (and related provisions 3, 4, 4C, 5, 10A, 26A, 37A/37B) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, as reflected in the provided sources. Where sources do not provide explicit detail for a point, it has been omitted.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Director of Consolidation, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the Assistant Director of Consolidation, the Consolidation Officer and the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall be deemed to be courts of competent jurisdiction while hearing objections or appeals or deciding disputes under this Act.]
1 Subs by Bihar Act 27 of 1975
Legal Comments
"Section 37(a) – Bar of Civil Court jurisdiction" - The Act provides that Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain suits/parties to vary or set aside any decision or order under the Act; Section 37 is a self-contained bar aimed at expediting consolidation and preventing fragmentation. [0300000000, Bijali Thakur VS Rameshwar Thakur - 1977 0 Supreme(Pat) 90 para 17; Ram Nihora Singh VS Ram Sanjwan Singh - Crimes (1994) para 9]
"Section 37 – Finality of Consolidation Officer’s decision" - Decisions of Consolidation Officers on title/rights are final within the Act; Civil Courts cannot ordinarily interfere, except where fraud, violation of natural justice, or non-compliance with statutory procedure is shown. [Bijali Thakur VS Rameshwar Thakur - 1977 0 Supreme(Pat) 90 para 17; 00800005270 (various)]
"Essential scope of Section 37" - Section 37 contemplates a self-contained scheme; it bars suits to vary/set aside orders and keeps within the Consolidation Authorities the power to determine rights to land during consolidation. [Bijali Thakur VS Rameshwar Thakur - 1977 0 Supreme(Pat) 90 para 17; Girja Rai VS Ghafoor Mian - 1983 0 Supreme(Pat) 307]
"Deemed Courts under 37-A and 37-B" - Courts have recognized that Consolidation Officers and Directors have powers akin to Civil Courts and may be deemed to be competent courts for certain purposes; but they are not fully equivalent to civil courts; their orders can be subject to judicial review. [Most. Prabhawati Kumari, wife of Late Baccha Singh VS State of Bihar - 2019 0 Supreme(Pat) 882 para 3; Junaid Khan VS State Of Bihar - 1995 0 Supreme(Pat) 365 para 1-2; Seikh Haidar Zan VS Md. Yusuf Ansari - 2000 0 Supreme(Pat) 420 para 39]
"Abatement under Section 4(c) – broad effect upon pending suits" - Publication of notification under Section 3(1) abates any suit/ proceedings for declaration of rights in land within the notified area; abatement is broad and covers pending suits, appeals, revisions, etc., unless a statutory exception applies. [Mossomat Kalia Devi VS Khub Lall Mahto - 1981 0 Supreme(Pat) 41 para 7; Mst. Siya Kuer VS Keshar Kuer - 1988 0 Supreme(Pat) 411 para 8; 00800049394]
"Partition/suit interplay – Section 4(c) abates partition suits" - Partition suits within a consolidation area abate under 4(c); subsequent proceedings for final decree are treated as execution-like steps not to be pursued in civil courts during consolidation. [Hari Mohan Thakur VS Mahendra Narain Chand - 1986 0 Supreme(Pat) 298; Deo Sundari Devi VS Ramanuj Singh - 2006 0 Supreme(Pat) 1272; Kalika Kaur Alias Kalika Singh VS State Of Bihar - 1989 0 Supreme(Pat) 353]
"4(c) – voidable vs void documents" - Not all acts filed during consolidation abate; voidable documents may require adjudication in civil court if the document itself is contested as voidable (e.g., voidable deeds of gift) per Full Bench guidance; mere abatement may not bar all relief where the deed is voidable. [Jiawan Pandey VS Mahendra Rai - 1984 0 Supreme(Pat) 86; Seikh Haidar Zan VS Md. Yusuf Ansari - 2000 0 Supreme(Pat) 420]
"4(b) and 4(c) – exemptions for certain lands after Section 10" - After crossing Section 10, homestead, orchard, graveyard, etc., may be exempt from Sections 4(b)/4(c) constraints; but overlapping contexts can be nuanced. [Jitu Bhagat VS Ram Prasad Bhagat - 2006 0 Supreme(Pat) 592; S. C. Yadav VS S. P. Seth - 1992 0 Supreme(Pat) 55]
"Section 5 – Transfer without sanction – void" - Transfers/partitions without prior sanction under Section 5 are void; penalties/sanctions can apply in keeping with Section 32; this shows the Act’s breadth to regulate transfers during consolidation. [Sitaram Singh VS State of Bihar - 1995 0 Supreme(Pat) 539; Bhageloo Sah VS Sheo Shankar Singh - 1984 0 Supreme(Pat) 115]
"Adoption/decree issues – binding effect of consolidation decisions" - Decisions of consolidation authorities regarding rights due to adoption, raiyat status, or possession can be treated as binding on related civil actions, though civil courts may review issues under Article 226/227 in appropriate cases. [Deo Sundari Devi VS Ramanuj Singh - 2006 0 Supreme(Pat) 1272; DAVENDRA PRASAD DUBEY VS MAHENDRA PRASAD DWIVEDI - 2000 0 Supreme(SC) 1571; Kalika Kaur Alias Kalika Singh VS State Of Bihar - 1989 0 Supreme(Pat) 353]
"Criminal proceedings and Section 145 CrPC – binding effect of consolidation orders" - In CrPC Section 145 matters, if the Consolidation Officer has determined possession, his order can be binding on the Magistrate; parallel criminal proceedings may be set aside to avoid duplication. [Ram Nihora Singh VS Ram Sanjwan Singh - Crimes (1994); Subash Prasad Singh VS State Of Bihar - 1985 0 Supreme(Pat) 259]
"Section 37-A – deemed courts – procedural fairness" - The Act elevates consolidation authorities to the status of deemed courts; they can summon witnesses, take evidence, etc., but their jurisdiction remains subject to the Act and the Civil Court’s review. [Most. Prabhawati Kumari, wife of Late Baccha Singh VS State of Bihar - 2019 0 Supreme(Pat) 882; Junaid Khan VS State Of Bihar - 1995 0 Supreme(Pat) 365]
"Section 37-B – powers of contempt" - Directors of Consolidation and other officers have powers akin to Civil Courts for contempt, attendance of witnesses, and other procedural powers; this supports their quasi-judicial functions but does not convert them into full Civil Courts. [S. C. Yadav VS S. P. Seth - 1992 0 Supreme(Pat) 57]
"Limitations on revisional authority – Section 35 vs 10/35 split" - Revisional powers are constrained by Sections 10/35; valid delegations exist, and misapplication can be challenged; the revision authority cannot exceed its statutory mandate. [Kabutari Devi VS Consolidation Officer, Kargahar, Rohtas - 2007 0 Supreme(Pat) 1091; Basgit Singh VS Deputy Director Of Consolidation - 2007 0 Supreme(Pat) 1086; Krishna Singh VS Deputy Director Of Consolidation - 2008 0 Supreme(Pat) 890]
"Evidence and admissibility in consolidation proceedings" - Consolidation authorities may not be bound by strict Indian Evidence Act formalities, but must follow substantive fairness; rigid application of Evidence Act may be tempered by the Act’s framework. [Junaid Khan VS State Of Bihar - 1995 0 Supreme(Pat) 365; Seikh Haidar Zan VS Md. Yusuf Ansari - 2000 0 Supreme(Pat) 420]
"Publication/records of rights – effect on pending litigation" - Publication of registers and finalization of rights under Section 16 and subsequent sections does not necessarily finalize civil claims unless addressed by 26-A; revival/reopening of suits remains possible in some circumstances. [Seikh Haidar Zan VS Md. Yusuf Ansari - 2000 0 Supreme(Pat) 420; 0080005267]
"Section 32 – void transfers under the Act" - Transfers contrary to the Act can be void and penal provisions may apply; this underlines statutory intent to regulate land transfers during consolidation. [Panna Devi W/o Vindhyachal Ojha VS State Of Bihar Through The Secretary, Revenue And Land Responents Reforms Deptt. , Govt, Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna - 2010 0 Supreme(Pat) 1223; Seikh Haidar Zan VS Md. Yusuf Ansari - 2000 0 Supreme(Pat) 420]
"Section 2(9) – definition of land; scope limit" - The Act’s definition of land and its applicability to agricultural land is central to determining whether a matter falls within consolidation; non-agricultural lands may be outside its ambit. [Hafizan Bibi VS Mouddin - 2015 0 Supreme(Pat) 366; Bhageloo Sah VS Sheo Shankar Singh - 1984 0 Supreme(Pat) 115]
"Interplay with other statutes – Limitation, Civil Procedure" - The Act interacts with the Limitation Act and CPC, requiring careful interpretation when considering appeals or revisions; some provisions may override others, but statutory juxtapositions require careful analysis. [Anant Sah VS State of Bihar - 1996 0 Supreme(Pat) 49; Paras Nath Shukla VS state of Bihar - 1996 0 Supreme(Pat) 753]
"Ninth Schedule protection – Article 31-B backdrop" - Post-1995 amendments placed the Act in the Ninth Schedule; this reduces the scope of constitutional challenges except on the basic structure of the Constitution; the Act’s validity is preserved, subject to fundamental rights considerations. [Most. Prabhawati Kumari, wife of Late Baccha Singh VS State of Bihar - 2019 0 Supreme(Pat) 882; Seikh Haidar Zan VS Md. Yusuf Ansari - 2000 0 Supreme(Pat) 420]
"Sec. 37 – Categorical bar with limited exceptions" - While Sec. 37 broadly bars civil suits challenging consolidation orders, exceptions exist for fraud, jurisdictional errors, natural justice violations, and certain extraordinary circumstances; courts have to identify whether such exceptions apply. [Jagat Singh VS State Of Bihar - 2006 0 Supreme(Pat) 917; Sitaram Singh VS State of Bihar - 1995 0 Supreme(Pat) 539]
"Judicial precedents – conflict among Full Bench decisions" - Earlier Full Bench decisions on 15(1)/(2) and the effect of 3(1)/4(b)/4(c) have evolved with Ninth Schedule placement, guiding how Section 15 limits or does not limit civil adjudication; post-Kalika/Krishna lineage clarifications apply. [Seikh Haidar Zan VS Md. Yusuf Ansari - 2000 0 Supreme(Pat) 420; Shyam Dulari Devi VS Principal, Consolidation Training Institute - 2004 0 Supreme(Pat) 1108]
"Section 7 – Implementation of final orders" - Implementing orders by Consolidation Officers is a specialized step; Anchal Adhikari and other officers are tasked to implement orders that have attained finality. [Praveen Kumar Mishra VS State of Bihar - 2023 0 Supreme(Pat) 741]
"Impact on related property disputes" - The Act’s abatement provisions affect various disputes beyond title, including partition, gift cancellations, and mutations; courts must assess whether Section 4(c) abates such actions or if separate relief remains available. [Bansi Bhagat VS Kishun Bhagat - 1980 0 Supreme(Pat) 166; Kalika Kaur Alias Kalika Singh VS State Of Bihar - 1989 0 Supreme(Pat) 353; Mossomat Kalia Devi VS Khub Lall Mahto - 1981 0 Supreme(Pat) 41]
"Summary take-away" - Section 37 creates a self-contained regime for consolidation; Section 4(c) abates civil suits and pending proceedings for land within notified areas; Sections 37-A/37-B elevate consolidation officers to degreed judicial-like status; challenges to decisions must be pursued within the Act framework or via limited, tightly defined civil remedies. [Bijali Thakur VS Rameshwar Thakur - 1977 0 Supreme(Pat) 90; Most. Prabhawati Kumari, wife of Late Baccha Singh VS State of Bihar - 2019 0 Supreme(Pat) 882; Junaid Khan VS State Of Bihar - 1995 0 Supreme(Pat) 365]
Source notes:- Bihar Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 – primary principles and Section 37 framework, abatement and deemed-courts implications are discussed across multiple decisions cited above, including AIR 1968 SC 714; AIR 1980 SC 2051; AIR 2013 SC 1010; 2000(2) PLJR 338, etc.- Select case references in square brackets indicate the cited authorities and para numbers from the provided sources.
.-(1) The Directors of Consolidation, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the Assistant Director of Consolidation, the Consolidation Officer and the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall have all such powers, rights and privileges while hearing any matter in dispute as are vested in a Civil Court in respect of the following matters, namely:
1 Subs by Bihar Act 27 of 1975
(a) the enforcing of the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, affirmation or otherwise and issuing a commission to examine witnesses;
(b) compelling any person for the production of any document;
(c) punishing the persons guilty of contempt.
(2) A summon signed by such officer may be substituted for and shall be equivalen
(1) No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against any person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of this Act or any rules made thereunder.
(2) No suit or other legal proceeding shall lie against the State Government for any damage caused or likely to be caused or for any injury suffered or likely to be suffered by virtue of any provisions of this Act or by anything in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of this Act or any rules made thereunder,
The provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force.
.-(1) The State Government may, after previous publication, make rules, not inconsistent with this Act for carrying out the purposes of this Act.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, the State Government may make rules providing for all or any of the following matters:
(a) the manner of publication of notices;
(b) the manner of giving notices to persons affected or interested;
(c) the manner in which the Consolidation Officer shall consult the Village Advisory committee;
(d) the manner in which a person may be evicted from any land;
(e) the manner in which compensation recoverable from any person shall be deposited b
Elevate your legal practice with advanced AI-driven research and drafting solutions. Experience unmatched efficiency, precision, and security, tailored exclusively for legal professionals.